It really wouldn't matter WHO Obama nominated to replace Scalia, republicans would still reject him

[Billy000]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Partisan Politics is silly, it's harming our economy, feeding into misconceptions about things like the debt..

 

[gipper]

Partisanship is a fallacy foisted on the American public and only the feebleminded believe it exists. There is little difference between the two parties...after all the years of W and BO, how anyone can't see this is most absurd.

 

[Compost]

What is supposed to be debate over differences in policy and approach to policy to keep one side from taking over has morphed into petty name calling. The OP is a beautiful example.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

What after almost 8 years ya still can't figure out the republicans don't agree with the policys of the commie Kenyan pinko lying commander in chump?



.

 

[jillian]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

it's not exactly a surprise that they're a bunch of hacks who will try to use this to get the G-d, guns and gays "Base" to come out to vote.

 

[Valerie]

Especially if Senate Republicans block a liberal appointee to the Supreme Court, this has the potential to inject this issue into the Presidential campaign. And it will work both ways. You can bet that Ted Cruz will be running on a platform to replace Scalia with more and more Scalias. This could finally be the election that brings the Supreme Court into national focus much more (it has not been mentioned so far in any of the presidential debates I’ve seen). You can listen to UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discuss the implications of the changing Supreme Court with Dahlia Lithwick on Slate’s Amicus podcast.

The Implications for the Nation of a changing Supreme Court. There is so much at stake concerning the Supreme Court for the next few years. As I wrote in Plutocrats United, the easiest way to amend the Constitution to deal with campaign finance disasters like the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United is not to formally amend the Constitution, but instead to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens with Justice Scalia’s replacement, there will be likely at least three other Justices to be appointed over the next 4-8 years of the next President’s term. The stakes on all the issues people care about—from abortion to guns, from campaign finance and voting rights to affirmative action and the environment, depend upon 9 unelected Justices who serve for life.

Ed Whelan (a strong conservative, and former Scalia clerk) and I will be doing a webcast on The Supreme Court and the 2016 Elections on Feb. 22. I’m sure these issues will be hotly debated, as moderated by my colleague (and former LA Times legal correspondent Henry Weinstein).

The kind of battles we will see over the fate of our Nation, enacted in the polarized Congress and in a polarized nation, will be epic. The stakes are high, and as I explain in Plutocrats United, depending on conditions we could see a vacant Supreme Court for a while (look for conservatives to argue over that) and likely the end of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees (look for that if there is unified control of the Presidency and Senate, but without a filibuster proof majority.)

As I said at TPM, this is the moment. It is the beginning of the most important civil rights debate of our time.

Justice Scalia’s Death and Implications for the 2016 Election, the Supreme Court and the Nation | Election Law Blog

 

[The Rabbi]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

it's not exactly a surprise that they're a bunch of hacks who will try to use this to get the G-d, guns and gays "Base" to come out to vote.

Gays vote Dem, Jilly. Surely you know that much.
Anyway, to the OP: The GOP will reject whomever Obama nominates because his history of such picks is atrocious, choosing people based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference rather than any actual accomplishment. Of course that applies to him as well.

 

[jillian]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

it's not exactly a surprise that they're a bunch of hacks who will try to use this to get the G-d, guns and gays "Base" to come out to vote.

Gays vote Dem, Jilly. Surely you know that much.
Anyway, to the OP: The GOP will reject whomever Obama nominates because his history of such picks is atrocious, choosing people based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference rather than any actual accomplishment. Of course that applies to him as well.

poor wabbit trollboy....

Log Cabin Republicans | About Us

most gays vote democratic for a reason.

and most fundie loons vote republican for a reason.

but no president has ever been denied an appointment. they may not have gotten who they want
but they get someone

get over it, loony toon.

 

[Valerie]

what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says goes. If he doesn't want there to be a vote on Obama's nominee, there won't be a vote on Obama's nominee. And even if he allows a vote, there's still a filibuster for the Supreme Court, unlike for lower courts. That means that Obama needs 60 votes to confirm his pick — and I highly doubt there are 14 Republicans willing to trade the Court's most reliable conservative vote for even a relatively moderate liberal.

That means that the Republicans will probably get their wish, and the choice will fall to the next president. And in all likelihood, not just that choice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82 years old, has struggled with both colon and pancreatic cancer, and received a stent in her right coronary artery following heart trouble. Anthony Kennedy is 79, and also has a stent. Stephen Breyer is a relatively spry 77, but if the next president gets reelected will be 85 by the time their tenure is over.

The likely range for the next president is thus between 1 and 4 justices. If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is elected and have a Democratic Senate, they will be able to replace Scalia and possibly Kennedy with solidly liberal justices, ushering in a totally new era of Supreme Court jurisprudence that could see decisions like Citizens United overturned. If Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or Ben Carson get elected, they will not only keep Scalia's seat in conservative hands, they will likely be able to replace Ginsburg and possibly Breyer too, moving the Roberts court even further to the right.

Antonin Scalia's death makes the 2016 presidential election a referendum on the Supreme Court

 

[The Rabbi]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

it's not exactly a surprise that they're a bunch of hacks who will try to use this to get the G-d, guns and gays "Base" to come out to vote.

Gays vote Dem, Jilly. Surely you know that much.
Anyway, to the OP: The GOP will reject whomever Obama nominates because his history of such picks is atrocious, choosing people based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference rather than any actual accomplishment. Of course that applies to him as well.

poor wabbit trollboy....

Log Cabin Republicans | About Us

most gays vote democratic for a reason.

and most fundie loons vote republican for a reason.

but no president has ever been denied an appointment. they may not have gotten who they want
but they get someone

get over it, loony toon.

You insult me and then confirm the point I made. Poor Jilly. Can't lose for losing.
No president has exhibited the performance of this one. And that includes Baby Doc Duvalier and idi Amin. Obama is the worst president in history. It would be like giving your bank account information to a crack addict.

 

[Rustic]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

As it should be, Barry has shitty judgement he will no doubt nominate an extremist...

 

[sarahgop]

Especially if Senate Republicans block a liberal appointee to the Supreme Court, this has the potential to inject this issue into the Presidential campaign. And it will work both ways. You can bet that Ted Cruz will be running on a platform to replace Scalia with more and more Scalias. This could finally be the election that brings the Supreme Court into national focus much more (it has not been mentioned so far in any of the presidential debates I’ve seen). You can listen to UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discuss the implications of the changing Supreme Court with Dahlia Lithwick on Slate’s Amicus podcast.

The Implications for the Nation of a changing Supreme Court. There is so much at stake concerning the Supreme Court for the next few years. As I wrote in Plutocrats United, the easiest way to amend the Constitution to deal with campaign finance disasters like the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United is not to formally amend the Constitution, but instead to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens with Justice Scalia’s replacement, there will be likely at least three other Justices to be appointed over the next 4-8 years of the next President’s term. The stakes on all the issues people care about—from abortion to guns, from campaign finance and voting rights to affirmative action and the environment, depend upon 9 unelected Justices who serve for life.

Ed Whelan (a strong conservative, and former Scalia clerk) and I will be doing a webcast on The Supreme Court and the 2016 Elections on Feb. 22. I’m sure these issues will be hotly debated, as moderated by my colleague (and former LA Times legal correspondent Henry Weinstein).

The kind of battles we will see over the fate of our Nation, enacted in the polarized Congress and in a polarized nation, will be epic. The stakes are high, and as I explain in Plutocrats United, depending on conditions we could see a vacant Supreme Court for a while (look for conservatives to argue over that) and likely the end of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees (look for that if there is unified control of the Presidency and Senate, but without a filibuster proof majority.)

As I said at TPM, this is the moment. It is the beginning of the most important civil rights debate of our time.

Justice Scalia’s Death and Implications for the 2016 Election, the Supreme Court and the Nation | Election Law Blog

Cruz has 0 chance in a general election. he would be a disaster, lose the senate, and get less states than romney.

the rubio/mcccain faction in the senate will reach a compromise and approve the obama nominee. Reps better get serious and nominate trump or hillary will be filling alot of openings. court could be 9-0 soon

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is how overly political and immature the GOP is. If they weren't, they wouldnt even bother debating whether or not he should nominate anyone at all. Obviously if he has 11 months left, he has a responsibility as president to do so. The senate will reject ANYONE Obama comes up with. End of story.

That's not true at all! All Obama has to do is pick someone qualified to fill in the "Conservative Italian-American" Seat on the Court

 

[Agit8r]

They know that none of the candidates they put forward could possibly be elected president on their own merits. It is 100% a political stunt to get single issue anti-abortion nuts to go to the polls.

 

[HenryBHough]

Going to be difficult, if not impossible, to find a responsible candidate who would want to forever wear the stigma of having appointed by a Kenyan emperor.